Tarot Decans in GD Tradition

[RichardT]

Question: do you read the astrological aspect of the 2 of Wands as:

(1) influence of Mars in Aries (as if you are staring at this configuration on an astrological chart), or ...

(2) the first decan of Aries, where Mars would have a smidgeon of extra dignity by face if it were there

I learned to read tarot the (1) way, and books like the Book of Thoth seem to imply it is correct. However, a few cards have difficult attributions, considering their accepted meanings. 9 of Pentacles comes to mind, where I've even seen people say "venus is in its fall in virgo, but that doesn't seem to affect the card much." That kind of language never sits well with me.

So now, I'm branching out and learning some traditional astrology, and am starting to think that interpretation (2) is more clean. Maybe the 9 of Pentacles is simply the second decan of Virgo, slightly more friendly to a Venus influence than the 8 or 10 due to dignity by face.

I guess I'm wondering if there is a clear GD party line on this distinction?

[rif]

Hi,

I was hoping someone with more decan and astrological expertise would answer you first. Like you, I'm familiar with the convention of astrological attributions used the by GD. Book T doesn't have a lot to say about this card's derived meaning from Venus in Virgo. "Yesod in Heh" suggests the possibility of "inheritance" in the text.

Have you seen Paul Huson's "Mystical Origins of the Tarot?" He looks at how the Picatrix affected GD card meanings, and perhaps this would shed light. If you like, I can look this particular card up later and see what Huson says about it.

[RichardT]

Book T doesn't have a lot to say about this card's derived meaning from Venus in Virgo.

Exactly! Book of Thoth same deal... it seems like when the attributions are inconvenient they look the other way. I'm not so hung up on the 9 of Pentacles in particular, but it makes a nice example of the issue. Changing perspective and seeing the attribution as a simple descriptor for the decan, though, seems clear and clean in all cases, though. So, I started to wonder if it were somehow more "correct."

Have you seen Paul Huson's "Mystical Origins of the Tarot?" He looks at how the Picatrix affected GD card meanings, and perhaps this would shed light. If you like, I can look this particular card up later and see what Huson says about it.

I would love to see that, and I've just ordered the book from amazon. It looks interesting, thanks! I do have Scion's PDF guide to the decans for the Liber-T deck, which is another reason I started thinking along these lines.

[RichardT]

Just so the discussion doesn't get bogged down in my 9/Pentacles example, I'll throw out a couple more cards that I think strain credibility with their planetary attributions.

3 of Swords (Saturn in Libra)... Saturn is supposedly exalted in Libra. In the little traditional astrology I have read so far, I see that malefics with essential dignity are able to express themselves in positive ways. Maybe not fun, but positive. For instance Barclay says a dignified Saturn could bring qualities like austerity, patience, and slow-and-steady accomplishment to the table. Does anyone see these as inherent to the 3 of Swords? They don't exactly call this card "the lord of growth through austere reflection upon sorrow", you know?

Instead, I'm wondering if maybe it's simply the face of Libra ruled by Saturn. No more, and no less. So the 3 of Swords is a sucky spot to be in, and a Saturnian influence would be especially well-dignified here (to bring about the patient reflection that heals mental wounds).


Another example off the top of my head: 4 of Wands (Venus in Aries) Venus in her detriment. Again, in the little traditional astrology I know, a planet in detriment is taken to be fairly ineffectual at accomplishing its goals. As if it is sick, is the analogy Frawley gives. Does anyone see the 4 of Wands as somehow (accidentally?) overcoming an inability to accomplish something? Even in part?


I don't know... the tarot books seem pretty clear on their intent that the planetary influences are in their minor cards. But, I wonder if the intent didn't get fumbled somewhere along the way, since the planetary attributions match the decan rulers around the zodiac. Just my conjecture, not based on any evidence except some difficult cards.

Any thoughts?

[Grigori]

3 of Swords (Saturn in Libra)... Saturn is supposedly exalted in Libra. In the little traditional astrology I have read so far, I see that malefics with essential dignity are able to express themselves in positive ways. Maybe not fun, but positive. For instance Barclay says a dignified Saturn could bring qualities like austerity, patience, and slow-and-steady accomplishment to the table. Does anyone see these as inherent to the 3 of Swords? They don't exactly call this card "the lord of growth through austere reflection upon sorrow", you know?

It does seem like there is an extra criteria in working out the attributions. 3 of Swords being a 3, and hence the Sphere of Binah (Saturn) should be pretty strongly Saturn, and I've read people say this makes it too much Saturn and hence the very negative interpretation, despite the benefit of placement in Libra. That makes sense I guess, but what I'm not sure on is how anyone would judge exactly when too much becomes too much.

Another example off the top of my head: 4 of Wands (Venus in Aries) Venus in her detriment.

In this case it could be read more loosely, as Venus and Mars (ruler of Aries). Kind of like a tight aspect between the two planets in a relationship chart, even a negative aspect would be a good sign for the bedroom, these two planets can spark of each other even when conflicting. And again, being a 4, maybe Jupiter (chesed) lends a hand too.

I guess I think of each card as having a set of astrological influences at play, but not necessarily complelety within the rules of traditional astrology as there is no chart to fit everything into. Its just different energies sparking off each other. I guess that means I vote for option 3 :D

[RichardT]

That makes sense I guess, but what I'm not sure on is how anyone would judge exactly when too much becomes too much.

Yes, I agree. I've tried thinking along those lines as well for the 5 of Cups (Mars rules scorpio, but maybe it's just too much mars in Geburah?). But, this kinda leaves me flat. Is the 6 of Cups too much Sun? The 9 of Wands too much Moon? 8 of Wands too much Mercury, etc?


I guess I think of each card as having a set of astrological influences at play, but not necessarily complelety within the rules of traditional astrology as there is no chart to fit everything into. Its just different energies sparking off each other. I guess that means I vote for option 3 :D

I think that's a fine way for a person to go. I'm looking for more of a system, though.

Most authors (which wouldn't bother me except it includes Crowley) have no trouble using the rules in spots (for example pointing out the moon in exaltation in the 6 of Pentacles). To the extent that I understand it, the best I could say is that they play fast and loose with the astrology... use it when it fits the card, look away otherwise.

To my mind, barring misunderstandings on my part, this is a place where tradition could be improved upon.

[Teheuti]

In the Golden Dawn the decanates were only one of the influencing factors on the card. They are often mitigated by other things. For instance, here is a GD text on the 9 of Pentacles:

Nine of Pentacles: (Yesod of Assiah, Material Gain, Venus in Virgo) 9 = A strong fundamental force. Levanah = Sphere of the Moon which governs the Waters of earth. A force which governs the feminine & negative is usually termed luck. This = gain. Venus the generative power in Virgo the fertile earth = material increase.

You can see the rest at:
http://marygreer.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/the-golden-dawn-minor-arcana/

[RichardT]

In the Golden Dawn the decanates were only one of the influencing factors on the card. They are often mitigated by other things.

They are just one of the influencing factors, absolutely. On inspection, though, I'm finding the astrology to be applied somewhat haphazardly. Surely I'm not the first to notice this, but I can't find an explanation. I've been looking around, expecting to see a website or book reference explaining why it only _seems_ sloppy, but is actually quite elegant. Sadly, the more I learn, the less impressed I am with the GD texts.

For instance, I would love it if the text you provided for 9/P at least made mention of venus' difficulties in the meticulous and analytical realm of Virgo, and for bonus points mentioned how the other factors mitigated it. Instead, we get brushed off with a statement that Virgo is "fertile earth" for venus' generative power. That's totally at odds with established astrological thinking. Even pop astrology websites will tell you that virgo is the antithesis of venus in most respects.

Am I just expecting too much? Hmmm... at least I am learning a lot by thinking about it so hard! And I do appreciate the replies I've gotten so far, so thank all of you!

[RichardT]

In "The Qabalistic Tarot" (one of my favorite references), Robert Wang says this in his entry on the 4 of Wands:


There are, in fact, a number of cards where the meaning of Planets in Signs differs from that commonly accepted, because the card combines Sephirothic and astrological symbolism.


... which, to me, sounds like a cop-out. If I mix two paint colors, I do indeed get a third color. No question there. But the two colors I started with haven't changed! Adding salt to a french fry does not change the nature of salt, my friends.

But, lets say I go along with this, and agree that fusing astrology and qabalah changes the meaning of the astrology. At that point my question is "where is the text on how _that_ astrological system works?" In all of tarot history, no one has thought to write it down? I could make peace with any coherent system, as long as I can learn it, you know?

I imagine many serious tarot/astrology students have hit this road-block at some point. Those of you that have gotten through it, how did you do it?

[rif]

Would you consider the fives a good example of the sephiroth taking precedence over the astrology? I can't say what the fives astrologically correspond to off the top of my head, but I have noticed that they seem to be consistent in their meaning across the suits; moreso than the other pips.

[Teheuti]

But, lets say I go along with this, and agree that fusing astrology and qabalah changes the meaning of the astrology.
I always teach that correspondences are NOT equivalents! Mixing systems is always about having a square peg and a round hole. If you then additionally have a hexagonal peg and a star-shaped hole and all four are supposed to fit together, then certain aspects of each are going to be left out. Also, the decanate meaning is more important than the planet in the sign - although neither Crowley nor Mathers always kept to that.

Crowley has this to say about Venus in Virgo: "The planet is in her fall and never develops properly. She may make a woman a careful housewife and a good hostess—for Virgo distributes the affections, forbids frendships but encourages acquaintanceships—but never a loving wife or a passionate mistress. . . . The native, too, is usually fastidious about people. . . . We find little development of the emotional nature in this position. . . . However, it does not always turn to evil. . . . For example, one may attribute much of Anna Kingsford's high mentality to this cause. Her tenderer feelings were distributed through intellectual channels. . . . The same development of emotion on humanitarian rather than on personal lines is clearly marked in Samuel Taylor Coleridge. . . . The position is admirable for a lawyer, giving him the power of insinuating his ideas into the minds of his hearers. Many very attractive speakers have this same position. People with Venus so situated have the power to express emotion without really feeling it. . . . The position is also admirable for a nurse, where the greatest care and tenderness are required, yet where any trace of true pity or emotion would diminish the efficiency." [from Astrology: Your Place Among the Stars - available at http://www.book-of-thoth.com/archives-article-8443.html ]

Plus, for the GD, the 9s of each suit were a strong fundamental and feminine force - which would work to Venus' advantage and bring material/earthy results with Pentacles.

At that point my question is "where is the text on how _that_ astrological system works?" In all of tarot history, no one has thought to write it down? I could make peace with any coherent system, as long as I can learn it, you know? I imagine many serious tarot/astrology students have hit this road-block at some point. Those of you that have gotten through it, how did you do it?
It's not "coherent" in the way that you are trying to make it be. You can go back to the old decanate images and read some of the 19th century books on astrology. Also, read Mathers' 1888 Tarot book as some (but not all) of these old Etteilla-based meanings were integrated into the GD system.

[RichardT]

I always teach that correspondences are NOT equivalents! Mixing systems is always about having a square peg and a round hole. If you then additionally have a hexagonal peg and a star-shaped hole and all four are supposed to fit together, then certain aspects of each are going to be left out.

I can accept that reasoning. I would just love to find the missing book that explains the rationale for what got left out. Surely they would have had to think about it along the way, and it would be extremely instructive to retrace those steps. To a person like me, anyway!


Also, the decanate meaning is more important than the planet in the sign - although neither Crowley nor Mathers always kept to that.

I agree with that, which is why I started this discussion wondering if I shouldn't just focus on the decan and more-or-less forget the planet/sign (which tie into the decan anyway). And to me, the qabalistic attributions seem to carry more weight than either of the others, anyway.


It's not "coherent" in the way that you are trying to make it be. You can go back to the old decanate images and read some of the 19th century books on astrology. Also, read Mathers' 1888 Tarot book as some (but not all) of these old Etteilla-based meanings were integrated into the GD system.

I'm in the process of doing just that.

[RichardT]

Would you consider the fives a good example of the sephiroth taking precedence over the astrology? I can't say what the fives astrologically correspond to off the top of my head, but I have noticed that they seem to be consistent in their meaning across the suits; moreso than the other pips.

To my mind, the Tree-of-Life view into the cards is the cleanest and strongest. Not just for the fives, but for all of the cards (majors included). I don't know if I say this because it is true, or because I haven't read the book that will shatter my illusions about it yet. :-)

[Teheuti]

To my mind, the Tree-of-Life view into the cards is the cleanest and strongest. Not just for the fives, but for all of the cards (majors included). I don't know if I say this because it is true, or because I haven't read the book that will shatter my illusions about it yet. :-)
I think the GD paper about the Minors in the Four Worlds makes the Tree of Life emphasis clear.

[Teheuti]

I can accept that reasoning. I would just love to find the missing book that explains the rationale for what got left out.
Aren't we all looking for life's little manual - the one that will set out all the principles perfectly and clearly? I'm afraid that with the GD material, the more you examine it the more you discover a 'work-in-progress' rather than precise mathematical formulas. No matter how brilliant some of the insights, there are plenty of errors and glitches. It's the very imperfections that allow and encourage people to go on experimenting and tweeking the system so that it stays alive and growing. This is disconcerting to some and intriguing to others.

Some of the discussions of Minor Arcana cards in the Thoth section do a good job of laying bare all the layers and allusions involved in the GD system.

[Scion]

Question: do you read the astrological aspect of the 2 of Wands as:

(1) influence of Mars in Aries (as if you are staring at this configuration on an astrological chart), or ...

(2) the first decan of Aries, where Mars would have a smidgeon of extra dignity by face if it were there

I learned to read tarot the (1) way, and books like the Book of Thoth seem to imply it is correct. However, a few cards have difficult attributions, considering their accepted meanings. 9 of Pentacles comes to mind, where I've even seen people say "venus is in its fall in virgo, but that doesn't seem to affect the card much." That kind of language never sits well with me.

So now, I'm branching out and learning some traditional astrology, and am starting to think that interpretation (2) is more clean. Maybe the 9 of Pentacles is simply the second decan of Virgo, slightly more friendly to a Venus influence than the 8 or 10 due to dignity by face.

I guess I'm wondering if there is a clear GD party line on this distinction? Hey Richard,

This question actually sits squarely in the middle of research I've been doing on the Decans for the past 3 years and a book that's in process at the moment... so forgive me if I seem deranged or monoscopic. :)

The answer is: No, the GD isn't particularly clear about it, but, Yes the system "works" (whatever that might mean) because it predates the GD. Mathers seems to have slopped the decans into the system, and the resultant attributions are one of the only legitimate GD innovations, for better or worse. Important to note is that the Decans are 36 asterisms that are assigned to parts of the Zodiac for calendrical purposes and referred to by most folks before the 15th century as the "Lords of Time" who had power over even the 7 Planets. The power of the Decans is characterized by the Chaldean breakdown of Planet in sign, but they are neither planet nor sign. The problem is that for the past century the obsession with sunsigns has foregrounded the map and ignored the territory.

This is also the trouble with using any kind of nativity definitions of the Decans... The Crowley-plagiarized-by-late-career-Adams quote that Teheuti references above not only doesn't refer to a Decan, it refers to Venus' effect on an individual based on its position in a natal horoscope. Several classical astrologers who actually used Decans described them as resembling a Planet in its own rulership... even those in detriment, so the situation is more complex than a horoscope read. More importantly, Crowley doesn't seem to have been a particularly good or educated astrologer. For all his love of Nuit, he liked the symbols and mystique more than the practice. He favors QBLH and it shows, in ALL his writing. So too, any modern sunsign statements will be similarly tangential: modern astrology believes the zodiac is fixed and planets are modified by their position. Classical astrology literally believes the exact opposite. The planets are the force, the zodiac is only locale. So too the modern (self) obsession with natal astrology, which was NOT the primary work of astrologers before 1800. Prediction and judgment was your bread and butter work. Cartomancy actually resembles horary (or electional) more than anything else in astrology.

The impulse for people familiar with sunsign astrology is to think of the Decans as the Zodiac sign filtered by the planet, as opposed to the traditional astrology POV which would be the reverse. Al Kindi's On the Stellar Rays is a good read on this point. For whatever it's worth, I think Aristotle's qualities (hot/cold, wet/dry) generally present the core for interpretations... and a consideration of dignity reveals much. So "Mars in Aries" produces a force resembling Mars (hot/dry) enthroned in his rulership : Aries (hot/dry) during the day. “It is a Human decanate and an Armed decanate.” Mars is the lesser malefic, “In feats of Warre and Courage invincible, scourning any should exceed him, subject to no Reason, Bold, Confident, Immoveable, Contentious, challenging all Honour to themselves, Valiant, lovers of Warre and things pertaining thereunto, hazarding himself to all Perils, willingly will obey no body; nor submit to any, a large reporter of his own Acts, one that fights all things in comparison of Victory, and yet of prudent behaviour in his own affaires.” Out of the seven deadly sins, Mars is assigned to Wrath. So, in time-honored practice, the GD boils it down into the Decanic spirit: This isn't the Lord of Power or Stength. This is Dominion.

Or take the 9 of Disks... Venus in Virgo. Venus is in Fall BUT "She governeth the Earthly Triplicity by day viz. Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn." Venus, the lesser benefic, is hot and wet (primarily wet... ie connective), while Virgo is cold and dry (and ruled by Mercury which is cold/dry yet "like unto Water"!! :bugeyed:). So... Wet (passive) predominates, modifying the nature of Virgo... and in Aristotle, wetness fills disparate AND similar things (while Dry contains/limits similar things). We might consider Venus a fertile Lady wandering barren turf; she isn't doomed, but she'd like to ditch this mudpit. Venus in Fall and ruling Triplicity and wet-wet-wet. As Lilly puts it, "the Fall shows but a present subjection unto a misfortune with hopes of Recovery.” So in Fall, a Planet has sort of lost its wallet and possibly its clothes in a foreign country, but Triplicity changes things: Ibn Ezra compares Triplicity to a man in his relative's house... so here it may be like being forced to sleep on a couch at your weird uncle's house over the holidays: there's a leak overhead, but you won't be murdered. Then consider the Picatrix: "This is a face of working, making a living, saving, stinginess, niggardliness and depriving others of their rights." Not really as positive a take on "Lord of Gain" as we might hope, but you can see the logic. Not so much Venus pouring forth bounty as Venus gathering cash by hook and crook so she can afford a ticket home. You can also see the strange "Bird in a gilded cage" quality that turns up in Waite-Smith and its derivatives. Stir in a little Etteilla (also traditional astrology, btw!) and Bob's yer uncle.

You could easily do the same for your examples of the Lord of Sorrow or the Lord of Completion. Traditional astrology is the only course here, natch. And again, I think it's well worth considering the 4 qualities which inturn impact Dignity; and take a look at Aristotle's On Generation and Corruption.

Now, there are LOTS and LOTS of books that will break down the Qabalistic attributions of the minors. Of course there are, because there were LOTS and LOTS of books, papers, and lectures by the GD members covering exactly that. The reason its so easy for people to argue the case for primarily QBLH-interps is because there's a ton of exegesis that's already chewed that meat for everyone. So the bulk of the GD curriculum is QBLH focused. Even better, after it was ripped clean of its various religious moorings, QBLH was so malleable it could be molded to fit anything. Instant Mysteries! Just add Otz Chim! Which is why the GD could discuss Egyptian or Hittite "godforms" without, uhh, reading Egyptian or Hittite. :rolleyes: It's also how we wind up with the dopey New Age idea that Spirits come in interchangeable archetypal flavors like supernal Haagen-Dasz or Merkavah is "creative visualizaton" on steroids... and how Silver Ravenwolf and her filthy ilk have publishing careers: Study not required so everyone's an expert! :mad: I can't fathom why people are so willing to enshrine the GD party line whole when scholarship has moved on in the past 10 years, let alone the past 50. But, please know that the Decans remain adamantly, squarely outside that framework... they do line up with it at points (what doesn't?!), but not cleanly, and not organically. So the irritation you feel about the messiness may be more a result of (as Teheuti put it) mashing a square peg into a round hole with a rosecross hammer.

At that point my question is "where is the text on how _that_ astrological system works?" In all of tarot history, no one has thought to write it down? I could make peace with any coherent system, as long as I can learn it, you know?

I imagine many serious tarot/astrology students have hit this road-block at some point. Those of you that have gotten through it, how did you do it? How's this for megalomania? Because "no one has thought to write it down," I am writing it my own damn self. I was equally baffled and just crazed enough to dive in. A couple years back, I put together a giuide to the Decans and gradually it got longer and longer and more involved. I kept finding new sources... strange connections... weird gaps in the GD papers. The more I wrote about them, the more people started telling me to just sit down and write the thing as a proper book... It's just taken on a life of its own. I just have to put it aside when I'm scripting something, so its been a bit slow going.

The funny thing is, the more I actually take apart the astrological gears the more I respect the symmetry and coherence of the Decan symbolism. Granted, this may be because I'm a nutjob who's spent way too much time mulling over Liber T... not to mention traditional astrology texts. But the more I look, the more I think astrology isn't as minor as the popular books would have it. The trouble is, nobody is doing the research. And small wonder, trying to dig out anwers to these questions has driven me back to haunt the stacks at Columbia and to translate books out of German and Italian (:rolleyes:). This stuff is just not available at McBorders in a scratch-n-sniff Llewellyn edition and is never gonna appeal to the "go with the flow" market. It is unmapped territory, hence my desire to actually get a proper book written on the subject that doesn't just regurgitate someone else's half-assed research or drag Angels or affirmations into the mix. Gack.

The Decans are old. The magickal images from which Mathers derived the GD pip meanings predate hermetic QBLH by well over a 1000 years and were so revered that their elaborate depictions and original Egyptian names survived in mangled form over the centuries. :bugeyed: Imagine! That's not even a BS New Age speculation; that's astrological history. I say that not to confer some kind of antiquity onto the Tarot, but rather to identify a legitimate tradition that has gotten VERY short shrift because of patchy, reflexive research and aquarian age laziness. The way I see it, if I have to write this book then I'm gonna: at this point I'd say it wants to be researched and written and I am on the case in a big way.

Anyways, I may be alone in this. I don't think there's a Golden Dawn party line, because they ignored a lot of astrology by dearth of interest, inclination, or legitimate sources. They didn't do their homework, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there to be done, or that the system they swiped hadn't been codified by people who did their homework. Met on their own terms, the Decans work... frankly I think they kick all kinds of divinatory ass, which probably means I am a nutjob. :D

Scion

[RichardT]

Important to note is that the Decans are 36 asterisms that are assigned to parts of the Zodiac for calendrical purposes and referred to by most folks before the 15th century as the "Lords of Time" who had power over even the 7 Planets. The power of the Decans is characterized by the Chaldean breakdown of Planet in sign, but they are neither planet nor sign.

I see! I was suspecting there was more to it than zodiac locations.

For whatever it's worth, I think Aristotle's qualities (hot/cold, wet/dry) generally present the core for interpretations... and a consideration of dignity reveals much.

I will do some thinking about this, and look at the aristotle text you mentioned.


How's this for megalomania? Because "no one has thought to write it down," I am writing it my own damn self. I was equally baffled and just crazed enough to dive in.

Well, it does sound like a legitimate hole in the modern literature, so it's a great topic for a book. Given your obvious passion for this topic, I look forward to seeing it finished!


I don't think there's a Golden Dawn party line, because they ignored a lot of astrology by dearth of interest, inclination, or legitimate sources.

... which to me implies that revisions to GD-derived decks may be in order. In some ways I think it's weird that most of us use decks derived from either the RWS or the Thoth when (as Mary says) there are "plenty of errors and glitches" in what the GD left us with. All these years and still there's no "version 2.0"...

[t.town.troy]

I just thought I'd chime in. I can't really add too much to the discussion, but here goes...

In more than one source for GD tarot study it is pointed out that the tarot is an organic system. This thread is a good example. There are many minds coming together to work on these attributes. Each person brings a bit of experience and knowledge to the table and the tarot "grows" a little bit. The elasticity of the system lets there be strong and weak points. It's like the problem of Justice/Libra and Strength/Leo or is Tzaddi really the Star? Or where does the Fool go? Or... well, maybe you see what I mean. ;)

The point is that it works, pretty much however you use it. The tarot is a philosophical machine that allows you to "input" different systems (qabala, astrology, numerology, i ching, the elements, etc. etc.) and see how they fit together and are similar or contradictory to each other.

I'll stop now, this post was longer than I thought it'd be. I guess the spirit of the tarot moved me...